E. Srinivasa Goud vs T.Maddiletamma,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3668 AP

                 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

                     SECOND APPEAL No.422 of 2021

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal is presented by the defendant.

2. The respondent as the plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of

Rs.1,52,000/- based on a promissory note dated 10.12.2014 against

the appellant.

3. The case of the respondent at the trial was that on

10.12.2014 the appellant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from her and

executed the suit promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay

the same with interest at 24% p.a. Further case of the respondent

was that inspite of repeated demands and issuance of a legal notice,

since the appellant failed to repay the amount due, she was

constrained to lay the suit.

4. The defence of the appellant at the trial was one of denial of

execution of the suit promissory note. He tried to explain that the suit

promissory note was fabricated taking advantage of the transactions

he had with one Sri Madhu, his friend and since he had borrowed from

Sri Madhu under three different promissory notes, each for

Rs.1,00,000/-. He also claimed that the amount due under these three

promissory notes was repaid, in all, Rs.4,00,000/- and yet, Sri Madhu

insisted to pay Rs.50,000/- towards additional interest.

5. On the pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues

for trial:

"1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount along with the costs and interest as prayed for?

3. To what relief?"

6. The parties went to trial. The respondent herself examined

as P.W.1 and she relied on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The appellant examined

himself as D.W.1 and he relied on Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 in support of his

contention.

7. The learned trial Judge, on the material decreed the suit as

prayed.

8. In appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the

trial Court, it was confirmed, modifying the suit claim only to

Rs.1,00,000/- since the suit claim was confined to that extent. In

other respects, the learned appellate Judge confirmed the decree and

judgment of the trial Court.

9. These are the circumstances under which the appellant

presented the second appeal.

10. Heard Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant, at the stage of admission. Finding that this is a case where

interference of this Court is not necessary, since there are no

substantial questions of law made out by the appellant, having regard

to the nature of dispute as well as the decrees and judgments of both

the Courts below, it is being now disposed of.

11. The point to consider and determine now is, in the

circumstances, when there are consistent findings relating to liability

of the appellant towards the suit promissory note, when the claim is

purely based on facts, is it necessary for this Court to reconsider the

same now and if it is permissible under Section 100 CPC?

POINT:

12. In a suit of this nature, where there is denial of execution

of the suit promissory note, the burden is on the plaintiff, namely, the

respondent herein to prove her claim. In usual course, proof of a

promissory note, in view of denial of its execution, should be based on

the evidence of the attestors and if necessary of the scribe to support

the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge observed that having regard to

the nature of the defence set up by the appellant, burden is very

heavy on him to prove that the suit promissory note is an outcome of

forgery. It is a serious error on the part of the learned trial Judge. The

learned appellate Judge did not bestow attention on this important

question, though Section 101 of the Evidence Act ordains that it is for

the plaintiff to prove the claim against the defendant and that the

legal burden remains constant without getting shifted.

13. The testimony of P.W.1 in proof of the suit transaction was

accepted by both the Courts below, though it is highly interested.

No other witnesses were examined at the trial on behalf of the

respondent in this context, in proof of Ex.A1 suit promissory note.

14. However, both the Courts below relied on clear admissions

of the appellant as D.W.1 at the trial in this respect.

15. The appellant as D.W.1 admitted in cross-examination that

the signature appearing on the revenue stamp on the suit promissory

note is his signature. This promissory note is in a printed proforma.

Curiously, instead of filling up the portion to describe the lendor, the

name of the respondent is appearing by means of a rubber stamp

impression. But the appellant himself admitted the contents in the

borrower column in Ex.A1 suit promissory note, being in his hand

writing. He further admitted that the attestors named in Ex.A1 suit

promissory note were present when he subscribed his signature

thereon. Thus, a substantial portion of the contents of Ex.A1-suit

promissory note stood admitted by the appellant himself at the trial.

16. Further, he admitted that there are no disputes between

himself and Sri Madhu, who, according to him was responsible for

fabricating Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Ex.B1 to Ex.B3-promissory

notes which have been the basis for his defence, did not support his

version in any manner. There is another admission of the appellant as

D.W.1 that he did not file any document to show that he borrowed

money from Sri Madhu and repaid.

17. In the presence of these pertinent admissions, which have

significant effect to feed the contention of the respondent, it could not

have been necessary for the respondent to lead any evidence in proof

of due execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note. The signature of the

appellant is appearing on Ex.A1 suit promissory note as well as his

description therein, at appropriate places where they ought to be.

These circumstances raise a presumption relating to due execution of

Ex.A1 by the appellant, conscious of its nature and being aware of the

consequences in doing so. Thus, these circumstances offer necessary

proof of execution of the suit promissory note by the appellant in

favour of the respondent.

18. These factors were considered by both the Courts below

and rightly recorded findings against the appellant. There is no reason

to interfere with these concurrent and consistent findings. The learned

appellate Judge is right in confining the relief to Rs.1,00,000/- since it

was the only sum claimed in the plaint, towards relief.

19. Substantial questions of law stated in the grounds of

appeal, are not at all based on the material on record. When the

defence of the appellant is one of denial of execution of the suit

promissory note, many of these questions refer as if the dispute is in

respect of passing of consideration. Unmindful of consequences of the

nature of the defence taken at the trial and the nature of questions

sought to be made out as substantial questions of law, the

memorandum of appeal seems to have been prepared.

20. Finding that no such questions as stated by the appellant

much less as substantial questions of law arise for determination now,

the second appeal has to be dismissed.

21. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage

of admission confirming the decree and judgment of the appellate

Court. No costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand

closed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA Dt: 22.09.2021 RR

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

SECOND APPEAL No.422 of 2021

DATE: 22.09.2021

RR